Jump to content

Phoenix_jz

Privateers
  • Content Сount

    7,707
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2122
  • Clan

    [HINON]

Community Reputation

2,791 Superb

About Phoenix_jz

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Getting chased around the rafters of the Wiki Office
  • Interests
    -All things naval, especially from a technical perspective
    -History in general
    -Rock

Recent Profile Visitors

6,320 profile views
  1. Phoenix_jz

    The Last Coo of Boom Flag, and Goodbye

    It's been a great ride, @Pigeon_of_War, and we'll all definitely miss your involvement in the game! That being said, life is about opportunity, so I wish you the best of luck in your next job, and whatever may come after!
  2. I can only repeat what's mostly been said above, but; The Essex-class are old hulls, and even a fresh build is an old design. There are literal thousands of elements of the ship that would have to be totally re-worked for modern standards. Realistically speaking, a small navy should really aim for a decently size LHD - this provides for a potent amphibious assault capability in combination with an instant helicopter carrier for a variety of tasks. if you want fixed wing aviation, you're in for a tougher time - you're basically going to have to either commit to the F-35B ($101.3 million per aircraft), or pick up EMALS and find a suitable catapult-capable aircraft. It also depends on the intended operations for the navy. There are very few navies that operate or plan to operate fixed-wing carriers - the list basically breaks down by nation as; US China Britain France Italy India Russia (when their carrier works) Spain is also technically part of the club as they operate Harriers off their LHD, though once they retire their Harriers they will lose their fixed-win aviation. Japan is planning to deploy F-35B's off two of their current helicopter carriers ('DDH'), and South Korea is also seeking to acquire a carrier. All of which are countries with significant military interests, and represent the most powerful economies on the planet. All are interested in power projection (Italy and India, though, to a significantly lesser degree. Their concerns are more regional, though the former has deployed their carriers abroad for tours and combat), and all are powers that structure their forces around acting with allies or on their own. In short; they have the economic capability and political will to operate fixed-wing carriers. This does not to many countries listed outside of those above. There are many former carrier nations that no longer have the economic means and or political will to pursue operation fixed-wing carriers. Canada, for example, is a nation that, while hardly 'small' in size and far from economically weak, is not pursuing any type of carrier and has no plans to in the future. This is, though, a combination of economic means and political will. Economically, Canada is not quite as strong as any of the nations mentioned above (they do slightly exceed Russian and South Korea in nominal GDP, but are considerably smaller in PPP), and their lack of naval infrastructure makes any attempted naval program far more expensive for its results than what, say, France or the US might expect. This is part of why the Canadian Type 26's are proving to be so incredibly expensive - all the infrastructure to actually build the ships basically has to be built from scratch. Trying to build a carrier would be... painfully expensive, especially given the fixed costs of naval aviation before even considering the costs based on size. Shifting over, though, there is also the case of political will. Canada, generally speaking, is not a nation that bothers much with power projection or independent action. Their main concerns tend to be cooperation with allies in coalition missions, and patrolling their own local waters. The Type 26's, which will replace the Halifax-class, will be a major boon in that regard, but you can kind of see why carriers don't fit into their national strategy. Why bother with a carrier when the only time it will do something is when your allies want you to? Allies that already have plenty of carriers themselves (the American carriers being more potent than anyone else's). If anything, Canada's biggest concerns at sea should be the changing conditions in the Arctic, and the increasing activity of Russia in the Arctic. Most of Canada's coast is in the Arctic after all, and there is an incredible wealth of natural resources at stake there.
  3. Phoenix_jz

    What in the ever living hell, WG?

    Now, I'm sure my brain is addled from finals and all these papers I'm drowning in, but I swear this thread was like 7-8 pages long ten minutes ago...
  4. That also seems to have been one left by an entirely different wiki team. Remember, we're just the WoWs team! But yeah, we're not large, and for better or for worse the real world is also quite demanding, which unfortunately does not mesh well with the large number of changes the game has undergone within the last year. We've recently taken on 4-5 new members, which has helped a lot, so a lot of pages are getting caught up/will be caught up soon,
  5. In my opinion, not much different from what she actually ended up doing. Eritrea was designed with a heavy emphasis on submarine tending, with equipment for air compressors, battery re-chargers, a generous workshop (fully equipped), hospital, and extra accommodation for submarine crews. It would be a waste not to employ her in such a role, since she's so well fitted for it. The minelaying task as @Murotsu suggested is also an option, as she was outfitted with mine rails and had a capacity for 100 of the P125 'Bollo' mines (125 kg TNT charge, 12-m maximum depth on the /1928, 30-m on the /32 & 35). Historically, this is exactly what she did in the early-war period, mostly doing defensive fields. What may have been a better option was the laying of offensive fields in the Red Sea, under cover of the destroyer squadrons based in East Africa. British convoys tended to have escorts that were too powerful for the old destroyers to attack, but cruiser escorts tend to not help against mines... With only 100 mines, if that many could be embarked on the escape run, randomly dropping them in the sea lanes near India may not be an option - especially given her historical route to avoid detection;
  6. As much as I'd love to paint a gallant picture of a ship so near and dear to my family's history - she'd struggle. Pretty badly. @mofton already mostly covered my reasoning, but I'll try to expand a little bit; 1) Firepower - Eritrea was not very well armed. In fact, she wasn't even fitted with the modern 120mm guns she was intended to have, but rather older 120/45's from WWI - these were the same catapults that armed the Leone-class, basically - which really wasn't enough to overwhelm the enemy. 2) Protection/Stealth - she wasn't armored, so anything that can shoot back is a threat - which is a lot of things. This can be countered by a surprise factor, if the ship looks unsuspecting - but she doesn't look like a merchant, which makes it difficult. She could disguise herself as a neutral sloop or patrol ship - she did this to sneak past the Dutch - but this only goes so far. 3) Speed and Range - Eritrea was no sprinter, and she wasn't exactly a distance runner either. Topping out at 20 knots makes it hard to chase down foes, and her maximum endurance of 8,000 nm at 10 knots wasn't really the most impressive for the vast stretches of the Pacific. More damning was the behavior of the machinery itself, which was prone to breakdowns and tended to be a PITA to operate. It was, in fact, judged to be overall unsuited to long deployments. Overall, this combination of traits/shortcomings made Eritrea generally unsuited to being a commerce raider. Even her follow-on stepsister, Etiopia, would have struggled. Her machinery would have been more reliable, and more powerful (top speed increased to 23 knots), certainly and improvement, and she was in fact intended to spend more time roaming in such a role, dispensing of all the submarine tending equipment Eritrea embarked. However, she still suffered from the issues present in the first two categories, so I don't see her having resounding success. What was really needed for success in the oceanic raider role was a much more powerful and longer-ranged ships. The RM did try its hand at designing Deutschland derivatives - first a 10,500-ton type in the early 1930s, and then a 17,500-ton cruiser with a top speed of 30 knots, 2x3 254/55, and a 150mm belt for the 1935/36 long-term program (a trio), but for a raider this was probably too much, and this was the last time such a ship was considered by the RM, though it continued life in design as an export ship. What was probably a better conceived design was the Program 1939 8,000-ton cruisers (6), or the Costanzo Ciano-class (3) that succeeded them. The 8,000-ton cruisers were to have a top speed of 32 knots, and a range of 15,000 nm at 15 knots. Armament was to be six to eight 152/55 with eight 90/50, ammunition capacity 50% greater than normal, and featuring strong deck armor with two aircraft for recon. Rather curiously, the design this produced concentrated armament in two quadruple turrets. The 9,800-ton Costanzo Ciano-class were based on the Abruzzi-class, although ultimately appeared quite different. The question of operational range was to be solved by hooking up a diesel drive to the two shafts, allowing for long-range cruising, and for a maximum power (combined) of 115,000 shp for 33 knots. Armament was 3x3 152/55 (German CL style layout), with 8x1 90/50 (four on each side), with the octuple 20mm nests sandwiched, one per side, between the 90mm mounts. Armor was similar to the Abruzzi, but thicker on the armor deck (45mm) and turret faces (140mm). Had they been built, the Ciano-class would have probably been fairly successful as raiders, given the long legs, good top speed, and decent armor and armament. It would only be a matter of time, however, before they were hunted down, not being able to hide, unless they could make the run to Japan - and disguising themselves in the same manner as Eritrea is not going to be very doable. You could always just make a sprint through the DEI instead, since it's not like the Dutch had much in the way to stop such a cruiser, and once you're past them you're home free - but still overall not the safest plan. It'd be interesting, if they made it to Japan, to see what it might look like if they operated as raiders from the DEI into the Indian Ocean...
  7. They're definitely two different approaches, just not one I'm sure I agree with when it comes to the Type 31e's. The RN does needs more hulls in the water, and the Type 26 was certainly to pricey to do that - but the Type 31e feels like an over-reaction in the opposite direction. The RN gets the hulls... and better pray they're not required to do much. For all intents and purposes they're oceanic OPVs, and that doesn't really seem to be the right answer to the RN's needs. Now that they have brand-new carriers, even if only one is active at a time, it's still going to be taking up escorts, reducing the number of MSC's the RN has left to assign to other tasks - and the Type 31 really can't fill the shoes of a Type 45 or Type 26 if the need arises. That's why I prefer something like the Ronarc'h or Thaon di Revel (Light+ or Full, ofc) - if need be, they at least have the full-sized VLS allowing them to take long-range SAMs, or quad-pack missiles like the CAMM. They're just far more versatile, and even if they aren't as good as the full-sized frigates (FREMM in either case), they can fulfill most of the same roles (the major exception being deep strike with land attack with cruise missiles, in the case of the FTI).
  8. Oh, without a doubt the Type 26 is better than the Type 42 in almost every respect, and the Type 42 didn't have any strike capacity or anything resembling the multi-mission bay. That being said, I'm not quite sure I'd go so far as to dub the Type 26's as being DDG's in affect - most DDG's have in common the trait that they're AAW platforms, and the Type 26 really isn't. The 48 CAMM it carries in the Sea Ceptor cells are fairly limited in range, so it can only really use them to defend itself and anything immediately around it. If it was running around with something like the Aster 30 as well, then I'd feel much more confident in calling it a destroyer. To be totally honest, in that respect I really don't get the use of the specialized Sea Ceptor cells to begin with - you can quad-pack CAMM into Mk.41, Mk.57, or A50 cells - so twelve of any of these types of cells could carry the same number of CAMM that the Type 26 currently carries at the moment. Fitting an extra 16x A50 or Mk.41 in addition to the current 24 Mk.41 cells could let you let you carry just as many CAMM as well as Aster 30's (which, iirc, can be fired from the Mk.41), or chose between a mix. Ex, 8x Aster 30, 32x CAMM... And the space surely seems to be there, after all the Aussies (Hunter-class) are sticking 32x Mk.41 where the British version (City-class) has 24x Mk.41 & 24x Sea Ceptor in the same location. Most other navies seem to be taking this approach with their new frigates - the Hunter-class and FFG(X) are both embarking SM-2's and ESSM, the Ronarc'h, Thaon di Revel and Bergamini (FREMM-IT) all fit Aster 15's and 30's (in the case of the latter two, the Aster 15 will be replaced by CAMM-ER, which can be either quadpacked or twinpacked, sources seem to disagree). The one major exception was the Aquitaine-class (FREMM-FR), which were only capable of the Aster 15, though the French seemed to have decided against that, since the latter pair will use A50's, as will all the Ronarc'h-class as previously mentioned. The Royal Navy is one of the only western navies not putting long-range SAMs on their frigates, which seems questionable given how few major surface combatants the RN has left. Not having long-range air defense doesn't make the Type 26's bad ships, and they're easily one of the best frigate designs on the market, period - but it does seem curious, especially on such a large hull with such a high price tag.
  9. Personally, I'm not very convinced when comes to the Type 31e's. Personally, I felt the Type 26 was way too costly for a frigate, but the Type 31e's are a bit too far of a step in the other direction. They're glorified OPV's with limited utility. Compared to something like the the Admiral Ronarc'h-class (the French equivalent, at least in regards to being a low-end frigate), it comes up very short. A Ronarc'h can contribute to area defense and even extended area defense, thanks it's capability to take long-range SAMs - a Type 31e cannot. A Ronarc'h has considerable ASW capability - the Type 31e does not. As of now, it also lacks anti-ship missiles (though this should be easy to upgrade), and has a... Rather interesting mix of gun calibers at play. Sort of comparable to one of the 'Light+' Thaon di Revel-class 'OPVs' (though those still have greater AAW and ASW capability than the Type 31e). Of course, these differences come at a cost - a Type 31e is £250M versus the €760M of a Ronarc'h (£650M), aka, the French frigate is 2.6x the cost - but that's still considerably cheaper than the £1B+ Type 26, and something like that or the FREMM represent a much happier in-between than the Type 26 or Type 31e imo.
  10. Phoenix_jz

    Leone, Leone, where art thou?

    I'm fairly confident it's a premium of some description, due to the fact the name is actually put on the hull. That's typically done only for premiums.
  11. Phoenix_jz

    China and power projection

    Well, once upon a time there was, due to the VMF's Black Sea fleet and for a presence near the Middle East. As the USN has begun to swing its focus to the Pacific once again, there's a greater need for availability there, and while security in the Mediterranean has only become a greater issue in the last decade, this is counterbalanced by the general increase in capability of many of the nearby US allies. Even with the general collapse in defense spending after the cold war, for example, the MMI's capabilities have only become more robust, to the point where, even with no nearby USN CSG, there's almost always a strike carrier available for immediate action in the region, be it Charles de Gaulle, Cavour, or Giuseppe Garibaldi, not to mention plenty of surface vessels and attack submarines. Despite the general deterioration in the situation of the Mediterranean, it's one of the few regions the USN really doesn't have to worry about since its allies have it taken care of.
  12. Phoenix_jz

    Were Yamato’s Final Escorts Refitted?

    @Sventex Already mentioned this difference between the differenc between the styles of attack, but to add to it and also to answer your original question; The German 12.8cm/61 (actually /58.5) FlaK 40 guns were a significantly better weapon. They fired a heavier shell (26 kg vs 23.45 kg) at a higher velocity (900 m/s vs 700-725 m/s), giving it greater effective range than the 12.7cm/40 Type 89. Additionally, they had a greater rate of fire - the Type 89 had a burst rate of fire of 14 r/m and a sustained rate of 8 r/m, to the 12.8cm FlaK 40's 15 r/m. The gun as a whole was much better, and in general German systems behind it were better than the Japanese, as they had much better RPC technology, working stable verticals, etc.
  13. Phoenix_jz

    British Commonwealth Destroyer Tech Tree

    Yeah... Not to mention only a 152mm armor belt, which most battleships will blow by. She'd make an excellent damage farm for heavy cruisers if the close to close range, though...
  14. Phoenix_jz

    Were Yamato’s Final Escorts Refitted?

    The 10cm Type98's would have replaced the 12.7cm Type 89's, rather than the 25mm Type 96's. This was actually intended for later sisters of the class (ex, Shinano), but obviously this never came about. I'm not sure what the planned fit was suppose to be. This would have improved the heavy AA firepower of the Yamato, since the 10cm Type 98 was a more effective AA weapon than the Type 89, with a practical rate of fire almost twice as high (8 r/m vs 15 r/m). However, it still would not have made a huge difference, as you've got too many deficiencies in her AA otherwise, mainly for the reasons I outlined in my post earlier. The quite decent 10cm Type 98's have the issues of; Being director controlled but lacking RPC Not being stabilized Additionally, their directors don't have the aid of radar, but that's less of an inherent flaw and more Japan's radar technology just being too far behind the curve. This, however, stacks with the 25mm gun still makes up all of Yamato's light AA, and is just a bad gun with limited hitting power, rate of fire, and effective range.
  15. Phoenix_jz

    My thoughts on Italian Cruisers

    I'm criticizing how the base designs of the ships are handled. The whole flavor of 'give them SAP, drop them a tier lower, and cut the reload to make them balanced' approach may work for the 'spreadsheet', but it makes them quite uncomfortable to play. The cruisers they were most similar to in design concept, the French, illustrate how awkwardly they've been tiered. For example, to compare Zara and Algérie, as ships - the French cruiser has torpedoes, and this forms the one advantage it has. Despite being smaller in overall dimensions, Zara is a heavier ship (by 853 tons), in fact almost as heavy as C5 A3. It's a faster ship, 33 knots versus 31 knots, and is considerably better armored - a 150mm belt and 30mm upper belt versus 110mm and 22mm (Zara's upper belt can autobounce up to 420mm shells and shatter 139mm IFHE or 180mm HE, Algérie's will autobounce up to 320mm and shatter up to 100mm non IJN IFHE or 130mm HE), plus turret faces & barbettes 50% thicker (150 vs 100mm). Main battery guns, though a second slower to load (16 vs 15 seconds), are more powerful (125.3 kg APC @ 900 m/s versus 134 kg APC @ 820 m/s, with the Italian shell having considerable better drag), and have much better firing arcs (±150° versus ±140-145°). Overall it's a a better ship in almost every way (AA battery too, but that carries very little relevancy to in-game balance). WG's addition or torpedoes to Zara only widens this gap. Things become much more even if one compares Zara to C5 A3, dubbed 'Charles Martel' in-game. WG seems to have 'beefed up' the displacement of the ship in-game, since it is heavier than Zara in WoWs (by 170 tons), although the actual design is lighter (Zara is 1,610 tons heavier at normal load and 1,460 tons heavier at standard displacement). Zara technically should have the greater healthpool, but this is undone by the additional weight WG seems to have granted to Martel. C5 A3 was faster than Algérie, at 32.5 knots, which is just shy of Zara. C5 A3 retains the torpedo armament of its predecessor. In regards to armor, it remains inferior to the Zara-class, with the belt thinning to 100mm (but inclined, unlike on Algérie). Upper belt is 30mm vs 25mm. The turret armor was supposed to remain identical to Algérie, but WG also took it upon themselves to buff it to 140mm. Barbette armor remains accurate at 100mm, however. In regards to the main battery, C5 A3 used the same gun as the prior French heavy cruisers, not the /55 provided by WG (but it matters little as Zara's guns are still more powerful than either version), in a 3x3 arrangement giving it an extra gun over Zara. Firing arcs remain poor on the aft and superfiring gun, though 'A' turret has better arcs equal to Zara's. In terms of main battery performance, overall the extra gun C5 A3/Martel boasts over Zara helps offset the superior performance and training angles of Zara's guns. The two cruisers are actually decently balanced against each other, though Zara may have still held an edge if not for the extra 'help' Martel got from WG. The design Saint Louis is much larger than any of the aforementioned cruisers, and is certainly suited to tier X. Her direct competitor, IX-203 (Amalfi), however, is a considerably more powerful ship. Both ships should have similar tonnage, being 16,000 tons at normal load. Both have 3x3 203mm batteries, although at that point the comparable nature stops. IX-203 is a much faster design, with a top speed of 37 knots to Saint Louis's 33 knots. IX-203 also had a far superior armor scheme. Turret faces and barbettes remain the same in regards to differences, but while Saint Louis still only has a 100mm belt, versus IX-203's 150mm with 50mm extremities. Upper belt is 30mm on IX-203, 25mm on the French cruiser. Saint Louis has the same firepower as C5 A3 (and also gets an /55 in-game for whatever reason), but even worse firing arcs (±143-145°). IX-203's 203mm/55's are even more powerful than Zara's 203/53's (in-game they will penetrate 30-40% more armor at the same range as the French 203/55), and retain the same excellent firing arcs (±150°). IX-203 also has two banks of quadruple torpedo tubes (though the Italian torpedoes are inferior to the French torpedoes, offsetting the extra tube imo). In-game, however... IX-203 (Amalfi) is a tier lower than the French design she has so many advantages over (Saint Louis). My point, with that, was to show how very differently the two lines are handled. The French cruisers generally tended to get improvements to their performance to make them competitive at their given tiers. The Italian cruisers, meanwhile, tend to get bumped down a tier and given excessively slow reloads and SAP, and overall perform worse than one would expect. Therein is the nature of the Italian cruiser's 'national flavor' - the flavor makes them perform to a degree that is inferior to how they would perform if treated like any other cruiser line. The result of this, generally, is to make them feel quite awkward. All to incorporate a type of shell they never carried (only the battleships, and, as with every other navy, the destroyers).
×